Come join us now, as we listen, as a fly-on-the-wall, to another interesting C vs E session.....
Posted on 02/01/2006 6:32:25 AM PST by PatrickHenry
True as far as it goes, but there are other motivations as well. People who attack evolution in the name of religion on these threads are "witnessing." There is an acknowledged tradition of not criticizing "witnessing" pretty much no matter how bad it gets.
Funny, but my copy of the Bible has a thing or two to say about "false witness."
Do you suppose the misprint is in mine, or in theirs?
My reply at 367 still stands.
My reply at 367 still stands.
The non-answer answer?
The one where you refuse yet again to provide the slightest bit of evidence to support your statement?
If it were me, I wouldn't want that type of evasion to stand as my final word on any subject. Makes it look like you were making the whole thing up. But it's a free country.
If denial and evasion is the best hand you have, I guess you have to play it....
I think that is a nice translation. very nice.
"Nothing for they are their own gods."
Excellent analogy, RunningWolf.
So I guess stripper factories and beer volcanoes aren't your thing, huh?
I especially liked the 'anarchy' one.
;^)
Beautiful!
Yes. The ID folks expect to that their spin should be considered science without data to back it up. But science, however, wants 'detailed rigorous' data.
How do you expect to get past peer-review without that data?
Check out the Discovery link. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640 . You can judge for yourself whether the publications are in a peer-reviewed publication.
I did.
Nope still wrong. Wedge does not equal ID.
Which would be correct.
ID is a subset of the Wedge initiative. Which is why Johnson met with Behe, Meyers and Dembski at SMU and included it into the document's 'Five year strategic plan summary' :
"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
one of my favorites:
Jesus speaking.
John 4:
45"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
gospel of JOHN 5 !!!! oops
Well, good you saw the distinction. The rest of your statement is nice fluff, but rather unimportant to the answer which Behe gave. Yes science wants detailed rigorous data, which is why Darwinian explanations are so much balderdash and why the judge was wrong in interpreting Behe's answer.
And your listing of the papers starts off with a supreme example of censorship. The paper was reviewed and published. The hurried bashing of the article by the entrenched interests does not negate the fact that the paper was published. There are two sides to the story.
Publication process for the Meyer paper
The Meyer paper was submitted to the Proceedings in early 2004. Since systematics and evolutionary theory are among my primary areas of interest and expertise (as mentioned above, I hold two PhDs in different aspects of evolutionary biology), and there was no associate editor with equivalent qualifications, I took direct editorial responsibility for the paper. As discussed above, the Council of the BSW had given me, the managing editor, the discretion to decide how a paper was to be reviewed and edited as well as the final decision on whether it would be published. I had previously chosen on several occasions to handle certain papers directly and that was accepted as a normal practice by everyone involved with the Proceedings. (This was confirmed even after the controversy over the Meyer paper arose. In a description of a Council meeting called to discuss the controversy, President Dr. McDiarmid told me by email, "The question came up as to why you didn't pass the ms [manuscript] on to an associate editor and several examples were mentioned of past editorial activities where a manuscript was dealt with directly by the editor and did not go to an associate editor and no one seemed to be bothered...")
Nevertheless, recognizing the potentially controversial nature of the paper, I consulted with a colleague about whether it should be published. This person is a scientist at the National Museum of Natural History, a member of the Council, and someone whose judgment I respected. I thought it was important to double-check my view as to the wisdom of publishing the Meyer paper. We discussed the Meyer paper during at least three meetings, including one soon after the receipt of the paper, before it was sent out for review.
After the initial positive conversation with my Council member colleague, I sent the paper out for review to four experts. Three reviewers responded and were willing to review the paper; all are experts in relevant aspects of evolutionary and molecular biology and hold full-time faculty positions in major research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, another at a major North American public university, a third on a well-known overseas research faculty. There was substantial feedback from reviewers to the author, resulting in significant changes to the paper. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments or his conclusion but all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication. The reviewers felt that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate. I too disagreed with many aspects of the Meyer paper but I agreed with their overall assessment and accepted the paper for publication. Thus, four well-qualified biologists with five PhDs in relevant disciplines were of the professional opinion that the paper was worthy of publication.
From original receipt to publication the processing, reviewing, revising, and editing of the Meyer paper took about six months. (By contrast, I once helped colleagues at the Museum rush out a paper on a topic upon which they feared that others were about to preempt them in about four weeks from receipt of the paper to publication.) Even after the paper was completely finished, due to other more pressing matters it sat on my desk for more than two weeks before I finally made time to send it to the printer. Thus, any allegations that I somehow rushed the publication process are patently false.
As for the others you have noted.
Lovely. Italian paraphyscology and biology in the same magazine. --- Not a refutation.
Says zip about design. ---- Title includes "irreducible complexity"
No review. --- The paper was included in the proceedings. (This work relates to the Department of the Navy Grant N00014-04-1-1031 issued by the Office of Naval Research International Field Office.) The work was published.
Says nothing about design. --- It shows that the "only" theory has a big hole in it.(and it is by Behe)
A recap of chromosome research. No mention of design. --- Recent wide-ranging investigations have confirmed and enlarged the number of earlier cases of TE target site selection (hot spots for TE integration), implying preestablished rather than accidental chromosome rearrangements for nonhomologous recombination of host DNA. The possibility of a partly predetermined generation of biodiversity and new species is discussed.
The authors mention complex specified information as an aside, --- The authors mention complex specified information as an aside, QED
So -- did Behe lie under oath or not?
Of course not and the judge remains wrong because a negative answer to the question having this qualification "supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?" does not imply the conclusion that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting intelligent design. Dr. Sternberg's situation alone is proof of that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.